solecism - ship of grammatical fools - BVDB - matt13weedhacker, Bill Brown, Euthymius

Steven Avery

Administrator
lets start with Matt - he was so intent to demonstrate his ignorance that he placed in 3 posts!
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s490.html#p81821

1st post

1619895003421.png

2nd post

1619895108719.png


3rd post

1619895158561.png


....
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Even after telling them again and again, even after quoting Eugenius Voulgaris, these grammatical fools do not understand that the solecism in the heavenly witnesses is only a grating discordance that arises with masculine grammar and neuter nouns. (Or, conceptually, feminine grammar.)

There is NO analogy above. It is all worthless, its only use is to show the ignorance of JW Matt from NZ.

Ignorance and posturing. Quite a combination.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Later, we can bring over, or point to, the other material from Euthymius and Bill Brown. We can also add the Hofstetter and Snapp worthless analogy attempts.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
==========

Matt will not answer.

Matt is more Trickster than Fool.

==========

Euthymius asked a reasonable question about pneuma in the Gospel of John, was backed by a dumb post by bluster Bill, and was fully answered here in 2 posts.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...tantives-confuses-james-snapp.1783/#post-6899

Euthymius should acknowledge.

===========

Bill Brown gave 16 false analogy verses
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...or-fem-sustantives-confuses-james-snapp.1783/

He does not understand and/or will not acknowledge. He did fool James Snapp.

He is the King of the BVDB Grammatical Fools.

============

You can also watch Barry Hofstetter using false analogy verses.
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...lse-analogies-matthew-23-23-1-john-2-16.1311/

============
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Here are a few more posts from Matt the Trickster (who lied claiming I changed earlier posts):
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s500.html#p81845
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s500.html#p81846
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s500.html#p81847

Saying absolutely nothing:

If Matt thinks something in Origen is analogous, simply show the text in Greek and English, show the masculine grammar and show the neuter antecedent nouns. Then we can look for a comparable solecism to the short text of 1 John 5:8.

===============

In response to the above, Matt again has nothing.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s500.html#p81857

He makes one true point —

“The grammar rules for concord and antecedents in Greek remain the same”

refuting the argument that the rules changed from John to Voulgaris and Babiniotis.

==============

We now have from Matt at least 8 posts, in a row, that say absolutely nothing.

==============

Added May 4, 2021:

Another
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s500.html#p81862

However I have explained to Matt why neuter grammatical antecedents are irrelevant.
Nine nothing, incompetent posts. As he does more, I will just note it on this post,

==============

Nine posts - and Matt still cannot put together a grammatical argument or analogy.

==============
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
10th post .. still waiting for the supposed discordance analogy

Meanwhile ...

"The servants of their masters,
the Father and the Son, are the body and spirit;
and the handmaid of her mistress, the Holy Ghost, is the soul;
and the three are the Lord our God;
for the three are into one"

Matt twists himself into a pretzel, trying to find:
mystically symbolizing or allegorically representing
of Matthew 28:19, combined with the earthly witnesses.

You can try to get anything you want, at the weedhacker restaurant.
 
Top